This article addresses the role of language abstraction as a means to discriminate female applicants in academic personnel selection. The level of abstraction of 814 judgments, which were drawn from publicly available archival material, was coded. Results reveal that judgments of female applicants were formulated using negative terms at a more abstract level and positive terms at a more concrete level than those of male applicants. Moreover, this gender linguistic discrimination was perpetrated only by male committee members. Further analysis of the use of linguistic category shows that this discrimination was mainly based on the use of negative adjectives. The implications of language abstraction as a subtle means through which women’s academic careers are hindered are discussed.
BellasM. L.ToutkoushianR. K. (1999). Faculty time allocation and research productivity: Gender, race, and family effects. Review of Higher Education, 22, 367-390.
2.
BenschopY.BrounsM. (2003). Crumbling ivory towers: Academic organizing and its gender effects. Gender, Work and Organization, 10, 194-212.
3.
BiernatM.FuegenK. (2001). Shifting standards and the evaluation of competence: Complexity in gender-based judgment and decision making. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 707-724.
4.
BiernatM.KobrynowiczD. (1997). Gender- and race-based standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 544-557.
5.
BornM. P.TarisT. W. (2010). The impact of the wording of employment advertisements on students’ inclination to apply for a job. Journal of Social Psychology, 150, 485-502.
6.
BosakJ.SczesnyS. (2011). Gender bias in leader selection? Evidence from a hiring simulation study. Sex Roles, 65, 234-242.
7.
CampT. (1997). The incredible shrinking pipeline. Communications of the ACM, 40, 103-110.
8.
CuddyA. J. C.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2004). When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn’t cut the ice. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 701-718.
9.
DavisonH. K.BurkeM. J. (2000). Sex discrimination in simulated employment contexts: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 225-248.
10.
de PootC. J.SeminG. R. (1995). Pick your verbs with care when you formulate a question!Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 351-368.
11.
DouglasK. M.SuttonR. M. (2003). Effects of communication goals and expectancies on language abstraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 682-696.
12.
DouglasK. M.SuttonR. M.WilkinK. (2008). Could you mind your language? An investigation of communicators’ ability to inhibit linguistic bias. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 123-139.
13.
EaglyA. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.
15.
EaglyA. H.WoodW.DiekmanA. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In EckesT.TraunterH. M. (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123-174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
EllemersN.van den HeuvelH.de GilderD.MaasA.BoviniA. (2004). The underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome?British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 1-24.
FiskeS. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 357-411). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
20.
FiskeS. T. (2010). Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology. New York, NY: Wiley.
21.
FiskeS. T.BersoffD. N.BorgidaE.DeauxK.HeilmanM. (1991). Social science research on trial: Use of sex stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. American Psychologist, 46, 1049-1060.
22.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902.
23.
FogelbergP.HearnJ.HusuL.MankkinenT. (1999). Hard work in the Academy: Research and interventions on gender inequalities in higher education. Helsinki, Finland: Helsinki University Press.
24.
FormanowiczM.BedynskaS.CislakA.BraunF.SczesnyS. (2012). Side effects of gender-fair language: How feminine job titles influence the evaluation of female applicants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 62-71.
25.
FrancoF.MaassA. (1996). Implicit vs. explicit strategies of intergroup discrimination: The role of intentional control in biased language use and reward allocation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 335-359.
26.
GaucherD.FriesenJ.KayA. C. (2011). Evidence that gendered wording in job advertisements exists and sustains gender inequality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 109-128.
27.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.
28.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance. Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications of gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109-118.
29.
HeilmanM. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657-674.
30.
JonesE. E.DavisK. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 220-266). New York, NY: Academic Press.
31.
JostJ. T.KayA. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 498-509.
32.
KayA. C.JostJ. T.MandisodzaA. N.ShermanS. J.PetrocelliJ. V.JohnsonA. L. (2007). Panglossian ideology in the service of system justification: How complementary stereotypes help us to rationalize inequality. In ZannaM. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 39, pp. 305-358). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
33.
LieS.MalikL.HarrisD. (1994). The gender gap in higher education. London, England: World Yearbook of Education.
34.
MaassA. (1999). Linguistic intergroup bias: Stereotype perpetuation through language. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 31, pp. 79-121). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
35.
MaassA.ArcuriL. (1996). Language and stereotyping. In MacraeC. N.StangorC.HewstoneM. (Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 193-226). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
36.
MaassA.SalviD.ArcuriL.SeminG. R. (1989). Language use in intergroup contexts: The linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 981-993.
37.
MaderaJ. M.HeblM. R.MartinR. C. (2009). Gender and letters of recommendation for academia: Agentic and communal differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1591-1599.
38.
MenegattiM.RubiniM. (2012). From the individual to the group: The enhancement of linguistic bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 36-40.
39.
MenegattiM.RubiniM. (2013). Convincing similar and dissimilar others: The power of language abstraction in political communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 596-607.
40.
MenegattiM.RubiniM. (2014). Initiating, maintaining, or breaking up? The motivated use of language abstraction in romantic relationships. Social Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000200
41.
MerkelE.MaassA.FrommeltL. (2012). Shielding women against status loss. The masculine form and its alternatives in Italian. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31, 311-320.
42.
MoscatelliS.AlbarelloF.PratiF.RubiniM. (2014). Badly off, or better off than they? The impact of relative deprivation and relative gratification on intergroup discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0036704
43.
MoscatelliS.AlbarelloF.RubiniM. (2008). Linguistic discrimination in minimal groups: The impact of status differentials. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 140-154.
44.
MoscatelliS.RubiniM. (2011). The impact of group entitativity on linguistic discrimination: Ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation in the explanation of negative outcome allocations. Social Psychology, 42, 292-299.
45.
NapierJ. L.ThorisdottirH.JostJ. T. (2010). The joy of sexism? A multinational investigation of hostile and benevolent justifications for gender inequality and their relation to subjective well-being. Sex Roles, 62, 405-419.
46.
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. (2011). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2011 (Special Report NSF 11-309). Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/
47.
OlsenD.MapleS. A.StageF. K. (1995). Women and minority faculty job satisfaction: Professional role interests, professional satisfaction, and institutional fit. Journal of Higher Education, 66, 267-293.
48.
PhelanJ. E.Moss-RacusinC. A.RudmanL. A. (2008). Competent yet out in the cold: Shifting criteria for hiring reflect backlash towards agentic women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 406-413.
49.
ReidS. A.NgS. H. (1999). Language, power and intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 119-139.
50.
RomitoP.VolpatoC. (2005). Women inside and outside Academia: A struggle to access knowledge, legitimacy, and influence. Social Science Information, 44, 41-63.
51.
RubiniM.KruglanskiA. W. (1997). Brief encounters ending in estrangement: Motivated language use and interpersonal rapport in the question-answer paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1047-1060.
52.
RubiniM.MenegattiM. (2008). Linguistic bias in personnel selection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 168-181.
53.
RubiniM.MenegattiM.MoscatelliS. (2014). From the lab to real life: The strategic use of language abstraction in achieving symbolic and practical goals. Manuscript submitted for publication.
54.
RubiniM.SigallH. (2002). Taking the edge off of disagreement: Linguistic abstractness and self-presentation to a heterogeneous audience. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 343-352.
55.
RudmanL. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629-645.
56.
RudmanL. A.GlickP. (2001). Perspective gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743-762.
57.
RudmanL. A.Moss-RacusinC. A.PhelanJ. E.NautsS. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 165-179.
58.
SchmaderT.WhiteheadJ.WysockiV. H. (2007). A linguistic comparison of letter of recommendation for male and female chemistry and biochemistry job applicants. Sex Roles, 57, 509-514.
59.
SeminG. R. (2011). Culturally situated linguistic ecologies and language use: Cultural tools at the service of representing and shaping situated realities. Advances in Culture and Psychology, 1, 217-249.
60.
SeminG. R.FiedlerK. (1988). The cognitive function of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 558-568.
61.
SeminG. R.RubiniM.FiedlerK. (1995). The answer is in the question: The effect of verb causality on locus of explanation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 834-841.
62.
SheskinD. J. (2004). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.
63.
SmithE. R.SeminG. R. (2004). Socially situated cognition: Cognition in its social context. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 36, pp. 53-117). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
64.
SnijdersT. A. B.BoskerR. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis. An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London, England: Sage.
65.
StahlbergD.BraunF.IrmenL.SczesnyS. (2007). Representation of the sexes in language. In FiedlerK. (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 163-187). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
66.
SuttonR. M. (2010). The creative power of language in social cognition and intergroup relations. In GilesH.ReidS.Harwood, J.J. (Eds.), Dynamics of intergroup communication (pp. 105-115). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
67.
TaylorD. (2007). Employment preferences and salary expectations of students in science and engineering. Professional Biologist, 57, 175-185.
68.
WigboldusD. H. J.SeminG. R.SpearsR. (2000). How do we communicate stereotypes? Linguistic biases and inferential consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 5-18.
69.
WindallS. E. (1988). AAAS presidential lecture: Voices from the pipeline. Science, 241, 1740-1745.
70.
WoodW.EaglyA. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699-727.
